I recently went on a buying spree. The options were as you described, so I bought a complete set of Zeiss lens. The 21, 35, 50, and 100 cost me far more than a couple zooms would have. Why did I make that decision, Because I have wanted them forever. Now I find myself slowing down, concentrating more, and learning to use the glass & camera to their potential. I do not shoot for a living so I can afford to be erratic. If, on the other hand, I shot professionally I would have gone with what is needed to get the job done correctly. Good luck.
OOOO, this is a tough one. For me, when such an oportunity presented itself, I had the basics covered, so it was a question of
300 f/2.8 vs. completing EVERYTHING else I ever wanted.
I chose to go with the 300 f/2.8 because it was a once-in-a-lifetime deal AND the 300 f/2.8 is something that I knew I would use often. That's the key difference here, I knew it would be used often and it has been.
Here's my thought: if you don't have a need for it, it won't get used much and you may end up with buyer's remorse. Sometimes our "heart's desire" changes over time but our logical choices usually do not.
Of course the "hear's desire" itch keeps itching until scratched, and it's not until after its scratched that we suffer remorse (hmmm, am I talking lenses or relationships ) Anyway ... before making a decision, rent an exotic prime for a week and scratch the itch. Then you will have the data you need. In general, it's best to get what you will use.
The first thing I can tell you from personal experience is not to buy more then you can comfortably afford. Otherwise, any enjoyment you may have expeienced could be mitigated by increass stress. The second thing I would recommend is renting the big glass. For what you would pay for one of those lenses you could get a nice vacation to a dream location where the lens could be enjoyed and probably have enough left over for a prime or two. You might also discover that the big lens is just to much of a hassel to lug around and it wasn't a good idea in the first place .Remember that just because you don't own one of those lenses doesn't make you less of a photographer. They are always available for rental. Just another way of looking at it.
Andre Labonte wrote:
OOOO, this is a tough one. For me, when such an oportunity presented itself, I had the basics covered, so it was a question of
300 f/2.8 vs. completing EVERYTHING else I ever wanted.
I chose to go with the 300 f/2.8 because it was a once-in-a-lifetime deal AND the 300 f/2.8 is something that I knew I would use often. That's the key difference here, I knew it would be used often and it has been.
Here's my thought: if you don't have a need for it, it won't get used much and you may end up with buyer's remorse. Sometimes our "heart's desire" changes over time but our logical choices usually do not.
Of course the "hear's desire" itch keeps itching until scratched, and it's not until after its scratched that we suffer remorse (hmmm, am I talking lenses or relationships ) Anyway ... before making a decision, rent an exotic prime for a week and scratch the itch. Then you will have the data you need. In general, it's best to get what you will use....Show more →
Another interesting point of view, and talking from experience very close to my own situation. How is the 300 as this was one of my possible candidates? I'm more of a portrait man and whilst I reckon the 300 would be awesome for portaits I usually work at the 200mm end of my 70-200 when doing portrait shoots. I
jim allison wrote:
The first thing I can tell you from personal experience is not to buy more then you can comfortably afford. Otherwise, any enjoyment you may have expeienced could be mitigated by increass stress. The second thing I would recommend is renting the big glass. For what you would pay for one of those lenses you could get a nice vacation to a dream location where the lens could be enjoyed and probably have enough left over for a prime or two. You might also discover that the big lens is just to much of a hassel to lug around and it wasn't a good idea in the first place .Remember that just because you don't own one of those lenses doesn't make you less of a photographer. They are always available for rental. Just another way of looking at it....Show more →
Thanks Jim. I completely agree about buying what you can comfortably afford. This purchase has only come about becuase I have moved on a few bits from another hobby and I have the cash to hand. It was a tough decision for me to sell on the other bits and whilst I could do lots of other very sensible things with the money I told myself that I would put the cash towards my main focus at the moment which is photography. It brings me great enjoyment and I always look at photography gear as an investment anyway as it usually retains a good resale value should I ever be in the situation where I needed to free up some money for other life critical things.
Dec 06, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Another interesting point of view, and talking from experience very close to my own situation. How is the 300 as this was one of my possible candidates? I'm more of a portrait man and whilst I reckon the 300 would be awesome for portaits I usually work at the 200mm end of my 70-200 when doing portrait shoots. I
*****************
I love the 300 and use it primarily for sports which I do plenty of with 4 of my 5 kids playing sports. It takes great portraits, even better than the 70-200, and it allows for a lot of good candid head shots as you can take the shot from a distance. I occasionally use it for wildlife as well but in conjunction with a 1.7 TC.
As for performance, I have the AFS VR-I version of the lens. Take sharp wide open, fast focus, great color. BUT, big, heavy, expensive, not easy to cary, need a monopod if you are going to use it any length of time.
I've made some "heart" purchases before, but never regretted them because I could always sell them later on without losing much money at all - if any. The 70-200 VRII was one. I bought it new, found out that it was as good as I imagined, but then realized I wasn't using the longer focal lengths much and that I would prefer something lighter anyway. So, I sold it and bought some other gear that I use more. But, I don't regret buying it because I would've always wondered what I was missing!
Dec 06, 2012 at 02:52 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I think we are deluding ourselves when we say that photo equipment is an investment. Since
photography became more electronic and less mechanical, it depreciates like electronics.
Even the true collectables are in a downward price trend. You can't think of cameras like they were Rolex watches. You can't count on not having to take a major loss when you sell them.
If you look at the B&S board here at Fred Miranda, the only things that are selling are those items which have been greatly reduced in price. There have many observations on this fact.
It is very rational to say that you've gotten a lot of use from your equipment and enjoyed it emensely. However,IMHO it is not a good investment in a monetary sense.
jim allison wrote:
I think we are deluding ourselves when we say that photo equipment is an investment. Since
photography became more electronic and less mechanical, it depreciates like electronics.
Even the tru collectables are in a downward price trend. You can't think of cameras like they were Rolex watches. You can't count on not having to take a major loss when you sell them.
If you look at the B&S board here at Fred Miranda, the only things that are selling are those items which have been greatly reduced in price. There have many observations on this fact.
It is very rational to say that you've gotten a lot of use from your equipment and enjoyed it emensely. However,IMHO it is not a good investment in a monetary sense....Show more →
+1 Unless you are making money off of it of course, but either way, it is a depreciating assest. Lenses hold value a bit longer, but ultimately they depreciate.
Check out http://www.keh.com/ for used gear. 80% of my gear is used from KEH and never had a problem. Maybe if you buy used.....you can still save some cash.
Mike Yamin wrote:
I've made some "heart" purchases before, but never regretted them because I could always sell them later on without losing much money at all - if any. The 70-200 VRII was one. I bought it new, found out that it was as good as I imagined, but then realized I wasn't using the longer focal lengths much and that I would prefer something lighter anyway. So, I sold it and bought some other gear that I use more. But, I don't regret buying it because I would've always wondered what I was missing!
The D4 was a 'heart' purchase and I haven't regretted that one bit, but then thats a very different purchase to dropping £4k on a lens with a fixed focal length. Out of the other lenses I mentioned earlier the 35mm f1.4 would be the important one and the rest I could easily live without. I reckon go with the 200f2 and start the saving process to put towards the Sigma 35f1.4. For now I can make do with the nifty fifty and 24f1.4 At my recent wedding shoot they got 80% of the limelight with the 70-200 and 85 picking up the remaining 20% when I did the B&G portraits.
I have a family + dogs portrait shoot coming up so would look to give the 200f2 a good testing then and a wedding in early January where I'll have plenty of time for the B&G portraits so may take it with me then.
grenadier2002 wrote:
Check out http://www.keh.com/ for used gear. 80% of my gear is used from KEH and never had a problem. Maybe if you buy used.....you can still save some cash.
Thank you for the link but I'm a UK'er. Besides, I usually always buy new, especially when dropping a lot of money of something.
I have the 200 f2 vrI and the 70-200 f2.8 vrII. For 99% of situations, the zoom is a better choice, and I rarely bother bringing the 200 out.
Get the 35 and invest the rest into stuff you will need for portraits. Extra cards, batteries, insurance. Then I would get some OCF (off camera flash) gear. Light stands/triggers/softbox, etc.
Given what you are getting into on the wedding side (and how well you did at your first one), I think you would have a massive amount of fun with OCF.
I recently parted ways with my 300 f2.8 AF-S II . . . I had it for more than 2 years and didn't lose a dime . . . I then rolled the proceeds into a gently used 200 f2 VR II. I'm tickled pink. While the 300 was a stellar optic, it was the lens less used when compared to my 200-400. The 200 f2 fits my interests and needs better and is a better complement to the 200-400. Live the Dream.
every now and again my "heart" sees some of the 200/f2 photos and tells me to just buy the d*&$ thing. even downsampled and posted on the web they can just take my breath away sometimes. it's hard to see them and not imagine that i could be gracing my walls with pics like that of my daughters.
then my brain kicks in and reminds my heart that i'm not accomplished enough as a photographer to get anything close to those images......
so far my head has been winning the arguments...but the margin of victory has been steadily decreasing.
zesto wrote:
Get the Nikon 200 f/2 and never look back. Life is short and you deserve it.
my thoughts exactly.
i was in a similar situation years ago and bought the big prime. it wasn't often i had 3-4k at my disposal so i jumped on a 300 f/2.8. i later traded it for a 200 /1.8 and i never looked back.
today i shoot with the nikon 200 f/2.0 VR and love it.
Generally, I'd say that you should only get stuff you know you'll use enough to make the lifetime cost (how much you sell it for - [how much you paid+how much you'll spend on maintenance]) worth it. In this case, I personally would say that the 200+ f/2.x exotic teles are only worth it to sports, wildlife, and specialty portraiteers.
However, since you have a D4 and I therefore presume you do a lot of action shooting, I think an exotic prime would make sense. 200, 300, or 400, all depending on what you shoot.
As far as used lens/depreciation, you definitely lose money buying new compared to even slightly used stuff (D800s are US$2500 on B&S compared to their $3000 price and 70-200 VR IIs are $2000 instead of $2500). You therefore suffer less of its depreciation the older the lens you get. (Nikon F mount big teles will always have some amount of residual value - I bought a used 300 f/2.8 AF-S for $2500 and doubt I will lose much money if I sell it in the next FX camera generation or two)
At the same time, you also have to contend with the fact you don't have the warranty service. Inspecting the lens personally is a must, IMO, or having a return guarantee from a reputable online seller. Would repair be easy/cheap for you? For me in the US, yes because sending to Nikon isn't too hard and so far at worst moderately painful (I won't go to my local authorized service center anymore). In urban developed Asia, it's even easier (Nikon's Taipei or Shinjuku repair centers are at most a few subway stops away when I go on business travel and their service is stellar). Other places? I don't know.
) Anyway ... before making a decision, rent an exotic prime for a week and scratch the itch. Then you will have the data you need. In general, it's best to get what you will use.